I'm waiting for more details about this tied-to-ID stuff, and if it affects people using different IDs on the same box. Overall, though, I feel like it's a brilliant move by Microsoft to help bring more attention to PC gaming.

"Games will also be required to be installed to the hard disk and won't need optical media to play." Is there a definitive source for this, or is it just regurgitating the assumption that wired made in their article? The linked xbox.com faq doesn't seem to mention it.

I don't see it being all that difficult. Any scheme where the owner of the actual plastic disc has the license would handle the second-hand market just fine. Easy enough to set it up where each disc gets a unique identifier, then if the game is installed to an Xbox not somehow tied to the Live account it was first installed on, it asks do you want to break the license on the old device or pay $5 or whatever to play on this device?

So what about kids living in the same house? Do they have to share a liveID or double purchase the game?

I also have that same problem plus I own 2 xboxes so that I can play one game while the kids play another. What happens when I want to move the game from one xbox to the other? I like just being able to move the disk and be done with it, then if I wanted to play the game on both xboxes I bought a 2nd copy of the game so the kids and I could play together.

Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the game and could play it without the disc.

"Games will also be required to be installed to the hard disk and won't need optical media to play." Is there a definitive source for this, or is it just regurgitating the assumption that wired made in their article? The linked xbox.com faq doesn't seem to mention it.

Wired spoke to Microsoft extensively, and I agree with their interpretation.

"Games will also be required to be installed to the hard disk and won't need optical media to play." Is there a definitive source for this, or is it just regurgitating the assumption that wired made in their article? The linked xbox.com faq doesn't seem to mention it.

Seems like they could have a simple "relinquish my license for this game" tool. You could grab it again, if you have the disc, just like you grabbed it the first time. You then take the disc to Game Stop. Game Stop queries Microsoft's database on that disc to see if its license is in use, if it is they buy, if not they tell the customer to go home an relinquish and then come back to sell.

But I'm assuming that the way this works is that it will only play a disc if your user account is indicated as allowed to play it by a central server.

But if the second user fee is lower than buy second hand, friends will buy just one copy and then everyone pays that fee. Are they trying to kill gamestop & co.?

I think thats always been Gamestop & co.'s fear. Its exactly like EA's online pass. You bought a used game and could play it, but when you tried to do multiplayer, you had to sign up for a subscription. I think that's the gist of this idea.

This way MS can claim they're still allowing for second hand sales & rentals, but still make a profit off them.

Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the game and could play it without the disc.(emphasis mine)So Wired is certainly saying that both accounts can use it.

So to put it another way: I can buy a game, install it, play it, sell it to my friend, he pays a fee, now we're both playing it? Ethics aside, that sounds possible with the above scheme.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it. In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Now if you want to make the claim that esoterica with writing to the metal with different GPU shader architectures and the like is the reason, OK, I can buy that.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it. In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Now if you want to make the claim that esoterica with writing to the metal with different GPU shader architectures and the like is the reason, OK, I can buy that.

It's a business decision. It would probably have been possible to do through some combination of emulation and API-level compatibility, but given all of the headaches and special cases they saw the last time around, why would they? Unlike the 360, there is enough commitment from game companies that they don't need BC as a selling point.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it. In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Now if you want to make the claim that esoterica with writing to the metal with different GPU shader architectures and the like is the reason, OK, I can buy that.

Well, not impossible but almost, probably the x86 cores will run at much less than 3.2ghz like the ppc cores, so even if they'll use instruction translation remains the problem to run it at full speed. GPU shaders are less a problem, they always used directx and the gpu is ati again.

Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the game and could play it without the disc.(emphasis mine)So Wired is certainly saying that both accounts can use it.

So to put it another way: I can buy a game, install it, play it, sell it to my friend, he pays a fee, now we're both playing it? Ethics aside, that sounds possible with the above scheme.

And the fee will probly be something like $50 on new games and then slowly go down over time. So yes you buy the game new for $60 then your friend wants to play so he pays $50 for the game. It's basicly like saying shiping the disc to the store cost $10. So the companies still make thier money.

I think this is 'not always on' only in the sense that it'll tolerate occasional disconnection; it's barely different.

The only machines I'm going to end up with are machines that I can use without needing a network connection at all, ever, just the way I use my current consoles. I deliberately don't connect them to the network to keep control over exactly what they're doing. I want them to play games, and that's all.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it. In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Now if you want to make the claim that esoterica with writing to the metal with different GPU shader architectures and the like is the reason, OK, I can buy that.

Emulating an architecture is incredibly resource intensive.

Going from a Xbox 0 to a Xbox 360, you have a much, much faster processor that could do the emulation reasonably well: it went from a Pentium 3 single core at 733mhz to a PPC triple core at 3.2ghz. Going from the 360 to a 1 may not be such a massive performance increase, so it might not be feasible to do.

As for Apple, the same thing applies, but on top of that you have the benefit that a user sitting at a computer isn't going to notice performance hits quite as much. Even if your spreadsheet is running through an emulation layer, it's still faster than you can fill it in. With a game, if the framerate lags, you complain.

But if the second user fee is lower than buy second hand, friends will buy just one copy and then everyone pays that fee. Are they trying to kill gamestop & co.?

Absolutely. Gamestop are leeches, any money you pay them for a used game is money MS and the developers will never see, it goes entirely to the Gamestop executives hookers and blow. This way, they can charge a fee that less than what Gamestop would charge for a used game (so the consumer gets a better deal), and the game developers actually get their cut from the sale. There's no place for used sales of digital goods, they don't make any sense.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it.

From what I understand, the Xbox 360 used what were, essentially, recompiled binaries to run legacy games.

Quote:

In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

Not readily. Modern Xbox is more or less Direct3D 11, which is substantially incompatible with the Xbox's API. They could probably add a translation layer, and I'm sure the performance would be OK, but it'd mean lots of software work for no real gain.

Quote:

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Apple didn't have to maintain performance, because Apple wasn't translating apps that have to run at 100% CPU just to hit a given framerate. Apple was emulating software that ran most of the time at 0% CPU, because it was waiting for user input. Moreover, Apple was emulating software that had to perform acceptably on 1.something GHz G4s.

Microsoft would have to translate software that was designed to push the limits of the three-core, six-thread 3.2 GHz PowerPC processor in the 360. The task is completely different.

Is this another one of those situations where the Internet has evolved the industry so fast that people are having trouble keeping up? Up until now, the shift in the way we distribute media has heavily favoured the consumer in that downloading music and movies was so easy that it became, in many cases, free (and arguably illegal, but the point stands.)

Might this be one of the first cases where the consumer has to bite the bullet a little? I think we can all agree that we don't want to have to pay an activation fee for a used game (I have rights, blah blah blah,) but with a little imagination, it's also not that hard to understand game publishers' point of view on this. If selling one copy of a game means it will be sold and resold to, say, two more users down the line, that's two customers they didn't get to sell to. In a case like that, how do you make up for the extra 67% in sales?

There are a lot of ways to approach this. Linking a game to an online ID isn't far different from all of the mobile apps we buy. Now, it is possible for me to sign into my account on a friend's phone and download my purchased apps. Signing out will void his ability to update those apps, but he'll still have them. The biggest difference here is that blockbuster video games (typically) have far fewer updates than a mobile app, so the limitations to non-license-holders wouldn't be as immediately obvious or compelling.

Gamers (including myself) tend to feel entitled to do what we want with our games, but I think if we look at this realistically, we're going to see some limitations imposed on that in the years to come. I'm not saying it's impossible to find a balance, but I don't think any feasible balance is going to sail through without any hiccups.

The way I'm reading it, it will only tie to your ID upon install. Once that's done, each new install ties it to a new ID. Meaning, you couldn't buy the game, install it, sell it to GS, and still keep playing it once someone buys that disk.

I realize I'm in the minority on this, but... I don't particularly care about used games as such, and my consoles have a reliable, permanent internet connection.

What I do care about is that, in the past, a lot of the value of console games as opposed to PC games is how future-proof they were. I routinely break out my Atari 2600 (and other similarly obsolete consoles) and the games play as well as they did in 1980. Will XBox One games still be playable in 2030? The jury is still out, but it doesn't look promising at this point, since everything needs to be activated using servers that will almost certainly disappear by then.

I've always paid the inflated new-game console price when I've seen a game I like, even if I'm not planning on playing it any time soon, because I want to support the developer and I know I can come back to it at any time. But long story short, while I won't say I'll never buy into a future-hostile system, it's certainly worth a lot less money to me, and I can't see myself paying $60 or more for a game.

The CPU architecture switch being the reason BC is unfeasible seems misplaced to me. The architecture switch from x86 to PPC for the Xbox (original) to 360 didn't preclude it. In fact, I'm mildly curious if Xbox (original) games could be backwards-compatible on the new Xbox One.

As well, Apple used Rosetta to do CPU translation from PPC to x86 when they did the switch to Intel.

Now if you want to make the claim that esoterica with writing to the metal with different GPU shader architectures and the like is the reason, OK, I can buy that.

It's a business decision. It would probably have been possible to do through some combination of emulation and API-level compatibility, but given all of the headaches and special cases they saw the last time around, why would they? Unlike the 360, there is enough commitment from game companies that they don't need BC as a selling point.

Plus they can, and looks like they are going to, go on selling the 360 alongside the One. It's not the same as the original Xbox where they were making a loss on every console sold right up until they stopped selling them.

So what about kids living in the same house? Do they have to share a liveID or double purchase the game?

That's something I hadn't thought of. Maybe Sony and Microsoft should do something similar to what AOL does. You have a primary account (which pays all the bills etc.) and each primary account can have up to 8 (or whatever) secondary accounts.

That way, each child can have their own sub-account which can use the same game from the primary account but they get their own individual high scores/trophies etc.